On Mon, 2021-06-14 at 08:58 +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > > I've uploaded an update of openjdk-11 for stretch-backport in February
> > > > but it is still in the policy queue. Is there an issue with the upload?
> > > old-stable backports is in general not supported anymore, since stable
> > > isn't supported anymore.
> > >
> >
> > s/\ stable/\ old-stable/? ;-)
> Sure.
> >
> > > We just failed in providing an announcement.
> >
> > On this topic, why not declare a roadplan for buster-backports in
> > Bullseye's release notes? Personally I think it would be nice to keep
> > it alive for some period (>= six months?) post-bullseye release to not
> > rush sysadmins who take time to validate upgrades of stable releases
> > before putting them into production.
> We don't need a plan, we have a policy. Old-Stable backports is
> supported as its officially supported by Debian (which is 1 year after
> the next release).
Debian supports each release for 5 years, but with a hand-off between
teams at that point.
> LTS is an "external" approach.
It's not. (ELTS is.)
> And the backports maintainer decided a few years ago to not support it.
I have no disagreement with this. LTS + backports doesn't make a whole
lot of sense other than for hardware enablement, and we have an
established way to maintain a backported kernel in LTS now.
However, the backports.debian.org page does need an update to refer to
buster/bullseye rather than stretch/buster, or to explain the policy in
general terms of release/release+1.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular.
- Adlai Stevenson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part